Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vik Vaz

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vik Vaz[edit]

Unsourced article, only claim to notability seems to be appearing on a game show. On the other hand, there do seem to be other participants in this show with Wikipedia articles. The article is attracting a lot of dubious edits, some of which I have removed. I suggest deletion on grounds of lack of verifiability of most details. gadfium 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vik Vaz is a guy with a notable game-show presence. He was always riveting to watch in his black shirt and tie. I say, keep him.--Alanjj 11:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I google searched "Vik Vaz" and most of the information in the article seems accurate. That "desi Ken Jennings" sentence seems like a dubious claim and i have edited it out. Gillain, the creator of the article, should source it since it seems relatively easy to do. I disagree with deleting this article given that many other contestants on Jeopardy! (and other game shows) seem to be listed as well. Its analogous to other minor show biz personalities in Wikipedia in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.106.218 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 15 October 2006
- I suspect that your idea that Wikipedia have an individual article for every Jeopardy! contestant that there ever was will gain little support. Uncle G 17:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the user is making the point that excluding one minor showbiz personality while letting other Jeopardy! contestants who are hardly household names (Bernie Cullen? Eddie Timanus? Tom Walsh? Niko Martinez?, etc.) remain in Wikipedia is somewhat arbitrary and certainly gets into a discussion of where the notability line is for minor showbiz personalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.136.9 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-17 06:56:20
    - Then xe is making the fallacious "If article X then article Y." argument. Hint: The assumptions underpinning the argument are false. Uncle G 12:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - reply To expand on Uncle G's point a bit, if you think that another article is worthy of deletion, then nominate it for AfD. There are thousands of deletable articles here on WikiPedia. We can't get to them all right now. Therefore, the existance of another deletable article does NOT make this article keepable. If other VERY similar articles have SURVIVED previous AfDs, you might be able to claim precedence; however, merely citing other articles you think might be unworthy of keeping as a justification for keeping THIS one is entirely faulty logic. This is a discussion of THIS PARTICULAR article. What about THIS ARTICLE makes it either keepable or deletable. Provide evidence within the confines of THIS ARTICLE to back up your point one way or the other.
Is there a clearly defined line that excludes BOTH Article X and Article Y? I assume this is the point of the fallacious claim and while perfectly reasonable to remove this article as non-notable if there is, it is NOT reasonable to argue that this is a rules-based (rather than arbitrary) decision unless there is a way to show that the notability criteria exclude the entire class of significant Jeopardy! winners (the exception for this Jennings guy is somewhat questionable)...As it stands, until some clarity on this central point is present, I disagree with deleting it or any of the other hundreds of tv show entries.
I agree that the facts of this article stand on their own and the entry fits within the general entries of minor personalities. Also, as strange as the condition may sound, Vik is a spokesman for TMS, a very serious matter. Happy to add external links about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.69.35 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 15 October 2006

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Game show contestant who did well, but not so well that he became a household word a la Ken Jennings. Let's face it, folks: dozens of game shows air every single day all around the world. In the US, there's even a channel just for game shows. Some people lose, lots of people win. We can't have articles on 'em all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Starblind Bwithh 17:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm searching Lexis-Nexis does reveal a surprising number of results of media citations for "Vik Vaz" and he does pass the "Google" test (yes, i realize this is not a consensus test yet) with a variety of diverse entries about him. I will add references within the next day or two but I still disagree that this entry fails the notability criterion given the reality that successful gameshow personalities and minor celebrities receive such significant levels of public attention in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.136.9 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-17 06:56:20

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 04:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 06:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Starblind Vyse 13:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ken Jennings is arguably now the most well-known contestant from Jeopardy!, so I wouldn't like to compare Vik Vaz with Jennings. But I nominated another contestant for deletion in August, and by final standing in the Tournament of Champions, Vaz is more notable than him. I've created a post at Talk:Jeopardy!#Notability of Jeopardy! contestants for further discussion. I'm neutral for this AfD at this moment. Tinlinkin 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject meets none of the WP:BIO guidelines. There are very, very few game show contestants that meet notability requirements. Ken Jennings is one of the only I can think of off the top of my head just due to the sheer volume of media attention he got at the time of his run on Jeopardy. In fact the people mentioned by the anon above are all of rather dubious notability and may not warrent articles per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 18:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete um, nontrivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources anyone? --Jayron32 05:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Just winning games on the show itself does not make one notable; one must transcend the boundaries of the show, have people talk about you at the water cooler, etc., in order to be notable enough for Wikipedia (like Ken Jennings, Frank Spangenberg, Chuck Forrest, Brad Rutter, Eddie Timanus, etc.) -- and Vik Vaz definitely did not have that happen. To 70.112.136.9 -- if Nico Martinez has an article, I'll be sending it to AfD immediately. He has less notability than Vaz. Andy Saunders 16:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I now have nominated Nico Martinez for AfD. Andy Saund e rs 16:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until/unless Andy Saunders' rule is approved by the rest of the commenters. Vaz in fact got much media attention in our area of the country (East and Central Texas) but I agree he did not transcend the show to any significant extent (and definitely not even in the same league as Jennings' level of exposure). However, the Saunders rule has the problem that Jennings would be the only contestant worthy of Wiki since I can't find any real evidence that the others you mention were notable (ie Spangenberg, Forrest, Eddie Timanus, etc.) outside of the Jeopardy/quiz show context. In fact, there are tons of minor celebrities (or politicians even) who don't really spark water cooler conversations or in any way transcend their very limited entertainment niche. To help get to a consensus, I will go with the mass opinion on this if everyone thinks that subjective water cooler standard is fair and agree to the multiple deletions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.136.9 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: The rule of which I cite has been approved, per se, by previous commenters in previous AfDs, such as Tom Walsh, David Madden, Brian Weikle, and Craig Westphal . FYI: Frank Spangenberg broke records. So did Jerome Vered. Eddie Timanus created a media firestorm and a ratings spike in 1999 during his run due to his disability. Brian Weikle and Tom Walsh also broke records. Andy Saunders 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm according to your standard Timanus should stay then but I don't see how the records of Weikle, Walsh, etc. necessarily helps your rule since no doubt Jeopardy or any other show has innumerable records that are held by a many different contestants, most of whom are probably very obscure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.136.9 (talk • contribs)
    - By citing the previous standard, that does not mean I am in 100% agreeance with the standard; I am just citing the standard that other contributors to past AfDs have used. In fact, I would probably lean towards deleting both the Walsh and Weikle articles if they re-appeared on AfD (though I think that some sort of catch-all article encompassing the gray area of tenuously notable champions would be ideal, in this case. With any new articles that come up, they'd simply be merged and redirected into the catch-all article.). Andy Saund e rs 05:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Another suggestion a friend made about this was that why doesn't everyone just agree to a numerical standard? Say 100 grand or any figure that would put a gameshow contestant in the top 100 or so game show winners amongst Americans. It might be easier than arguing about the nontrivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources standard or the google standard, etc. While it would put in quite a few people who don't really achieve much notability, at least it would be an objective standard.
  - reply We have a standard. It is: multiple, nontrivial references in reliable sources. All other arbitrary standards or guidelines are inadequate as being too unreliable as standards. All other guidelines, if applied, either include obviously unnotable subjects, or eliminate from consideration otherwise highly notable subjects. We don't have any evidence that this guy meets the basic notability baseline of NONTRIVIAL coverage in MULTIPLE, and RELIABLE sources. --Jayron32 22:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.